The deeper the real estate market adjustment, the more we must guard against chaotic practices in home buying.

"The developer first deposits the down payment into my bank account, and then I transfer the money to an account designated by the developer. Zero down payment is essentially the developer advancing the down payment for you." "The actual transaction price of the (house) was 1.35 million yuan, but (through inflated appraisal and high loan) the loan was 1.34 million yuan, which is equivalent to buying a home with zero down payment." ... According to reports by The Beijing News, recently, practices such as zero-down-payment home purchases and borrowing to refinance loans have resurfaced in many places.

In fact, almost every time the real estate market enters a major adjustment cycle, such phenomena appear. To a large extent, this is the product of collusion among developers, intermediaries, homebuyers, and other participants. But whether from the perspective of protecting individual rights and interests or from that of the healthy development of the real estate market and the financial industry, such operations, which clearly smack of "gray-area" practices, carry considerable risks and must be treated with vigilance.

Take zero-down-payment home purchases, for example. They may appear to lower the threshold for "getting on board," but "the wool comes from the sheep"—homebuyers actually face greater interest expenses and monthly payment pressure later on. Once income fluctuates, a series of default risks may arise.

In addition, zero down payment also involves irregular operations such as signing dual contracts. This means that many agreements cannot be directly reflected in the contract and therefore lose legal protection. Once the real estate company fails to honor its promises, homebuyers may not only lose both the house and the money but may also be suspected of loan fraud. For this reason, regulators long ago explicitly prohibited zero-down-payment home purchases.

Similarly, using consumer loans to repay mortgages may look like participating in an "arbitrage" game, but because the repayment periods of the two types of loans differ significantly, the interest savings for homebuyers come at the cost of a sharp increase in short-term repayment pressure. At the same time, once banks discover this practice, the consequences may range from credit penalties to suspected loan fraud in serious cases.

Particular attention should be paid to the fact that, compared with past real estate cycles and the fundamentals of social development, current expectations for personal income growth and the uncertainty facing housing price trends have both increased markedly. The risks for individuals participating in gray-area operations such as zero-down-payment home purchases are naturally further amplified.

Therefore, from any perspective, every homebuyer and mortgage borrower should remain prudent about explicitly prohibited home-purchase or loan-reduction operations that carry legal risks, and avoid being "duped" by developers and intermediaries—establishing awareness of rules while also acting within their means.

It cannot be denied that some developers and intermediaries are currently under real pressure to reduce inventory and meet performance targets. However, marketing methods built on violations of laws and regulations undoubtedly run counter to the needs of the healthy development of the real estate and financial industries, and may also obscure the true state of the market and send erroneous market signals, thereby accumulating new risks. It can be said that the deeper the market adjustment, the more vigilance is needed against these chaotic practices.

Regarding some obvious illegal and irregular operations, some local governments and regulatory authorities must not adopt a laissez-faire attitude of turning a blind eye to chaotic practices out of pressure to "shore up" real estate; the bottom line must be upheld.

In addition, the fact that operations such as "borrowing to refinance loans" still have a market may indicate that there is still room and necessity for lowering existing mortgage rates, which also deserves serious attention at the decision-making level.

In the new real estate development cycle and at a time when real estate regulation continues to be relaxed, one point must be reiterated: high vigilance should still be maintained against all kinds of market chaos that challenge the bottom line of laws and regulations and harbor hidden risks, and the balance between "loosening" and "regulating" must be effectively maintained. This is also an inherent requirement of "building a new model for real estate development."